yaounderespire
Carbonite Member
Between a 50mm Zeiss and a 50mm Canon or Nikon, what exactly does the exdtra money give me? I'm confused.
Is Zeis worth it?
- Thread starter yaounderespire
- Start date
Dennis over at Cinevate has the answer you are looking for =)
I'm using good old Nikon lenses and they work really great. There is a difference, where the Zeiss is better, but the Nikon lenses are in no way bad, I've seen some really great and top notch stuff being done with old nikon lenses.
http://www.cinevate.com/website/flash/zeiss.flv
I'm using good old Nikon lenses and they work really great. There is a difference, where the Zeiss is better, but the Nikon lenses are in no way bad, I've seen some really great and top notch stuff being done with old nikon lenses.
http://www.cinevate.com/website/flash/zeiss.flv
Jason Allen
Well-known member
Is a Zeiss lens better than a Nikon prime lens? In some cases, yes.
For photography purposes, I've found that my Zeiss 35mm f/2 ZF is SIGNIFICANTLY sharper from f/2 to f/4, with more punchy contrast and less chromatic aberration than my Nikon 35mm f/2 AFD. The Zeiss 85mm f/1.4 ZF is shaper from f/1.4 to f/2.8, and handles flare somewhat better than the Nikon 85mm f/1.4 AFD.
That said, those results were on a 12.3 megapixel DX sensor (D90, D300), and also on a 12.1 megapixel FX sensor (D700).
On a 35mm adapter like the Letus35 Mini, Brevis, Redrock Micro M2, etc etc... you're not going to see a significant difference between the Nikon and Zeiss lenses in any area except for color contrast at the most wide open aperture, and even then, it's well within the range of color correction.
I own a Nikon 50mm f/1.4 AFD and a Zeiss ZF 50mm f/1.4. The big difference between the two is that the Zeiss is sharper from f/1.4 to f/2.8 at distances greater than 10 feet. The Nikon is just as sharp from f/1.4-2.8 in the close distances (a noted weakness of the Zeiss 50/1.4 ZF). The Nikon has worse chromatic aberration within high contrast scenes at f/1.4, but by f/2 the Nikon and Zeiss 50 primes yield comparable results.
I've used a Vivitar 85mm f/1.4 Series 1 prime side by side with a Zeiss 85mm f/1.4 ZF prime on a Letus35 Elite + HVX200 at 720p/24pn, and looking at the footage (same lighting, same white balance, same camera settings) I couldn't tell which lens took which shot, even while pixel peeping on a color calibrated Flanders Scientific monitor.
For photography purposes, I've found that my Zeiss 35mm f/2 ZF is SIGNIFICANTLY sharper from f/2 to f/4, with more punchy contrast and less chromatic aberration than my Nikon 35mm f/2 AFD. The Zeiss 85mm f/1.4 ZF is shaper from f/1.4 to f/2.8, and handles flare somewhat better than the Nikon 85mm f/1.4 AFD.
That said, those results were on a 12.3 megapixel DX sensor (D90, D300), and also on a 12.1 megapixel FX sensor (D700).
On a 35mm adapter like the Letus35 Mini, Brevis, Redrock Micro M2, etc etc... you're not going to see a significant difference between the Nikon and Zeiss lenses in any area except for color contrast at the most wide open aperture, and even then, it's well within the range of color correction.
I own a Nikon 50mm f/1.4 AFD and a Zeiss ZF 50mm f/1.4. The big difference between the two is that the Zeiss is sharper from f/1.4 to f/2.8 at distances greater than 10 feet. The Nikon is just as sharp from f/1.4-2.8 in the close distances (a noted weakness of the Zeiss 50/1.4 ZF). The Nikon has worse chromatic aberration within high contrast scenes at f/1.4, but by f/2 the Nikon and Zeiss 50 primes yield comparable results.
I've used a Vivitar 85mm f/1.4 Series 1 prime side by side with a Zeiss 85mm f/1.4 ZF prime on a Letus35 Elite + HVX200 at 720p/24pn, and looking at the footage (same lighting, same white balance, same camera settings) I couldn't tell which lens took which shot, even while pixel peeping on a color calibrated Flanders Scientific monitor.